Wouldn't software that acts like a jerk (ie not letting
people in etc) be more valuable if it gets from A to B
faster? Why think that the same pressures that force drivers
to act like jerks won't also be applied to software?
Because with human drivers, a human is liable for failures. With software, the company is liable. If the software thinks "this is a dangerous situation", it will be written to defer to not causing injury, because there's really no way the contents of a truck are going to be worth more than the cost of paying out $x millions in the case of killing a human.
Check the fine print on your windows license. Then check the fine print on any aerospace autopilot. They disclaim everything. It's always the operators responsibility, never the manufacturers unless of a serious defect.
>> no way the contents of a truck are going to be worth more than the cost of paying out $x millions in the case of killing a human.
If that were true all sorts of other safety devices would already be on trucks, starting with gps-enabled speed regulators. There is always a cost-benefit analysis. That includes tradeoffs between utility and safety.
You are missing my meaning. By 'software', I mean the software that runs the self-driving trucks; both the companies building and using self-driving trucks could and would be liable, no matter what is 'in the fine print'. There is no operator, so blame has to go somewhere.
There are already safety devices on trucks, but since there is a human operator, much of the onus of using or installing those is on the human, not the truck manufacturer or trucking company; and again, you're missing my point that with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software.
>> with no driver, the liability falls to the producers of the self-driving software.
Not really. The owner of the truck is also the operator. Trucking companies are sued for damages caused by their drivers every day. If a truck company chooses to use particular software, as they choose a particular driver, the trucking company will be liable. They are the one that decided to put the vehicle on the road. That's why they must carry insurance and why that insurance attaches to the vehicle regardless of who is driving it on a particular day. Swapping out an employee-driver for a robot won't change the situation.
Even a truck that is stolen, a truck driven by someone the operator doesn't want behind the wheel, can result in liability should the operator not have taken reasonable steps to guard against theft.
